Did Congressman Burgess Miss a Few Things at Guantanamo?

Recently Congressman Michael Burgess, the Republican from Texas' 26th district, paid a visit to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and gave a favorable assessment of the situation to the News Connection. Now a report has been filed alleging guards bragged about widespread abuse of detainees at the prison. Stephen Webster, at Gonzo Muckraker, has a "Compare and Contrast" post suggesting that Dr. Burgess' assessment of the treatment of the detainees may have missed a few things. Webster contrasts Burgess' report with stories of abuse overheard by Marine Sergeant Heather Cerveny.

Congressman Burgess says: "Even though we are dealing with some of the most vicious and dedicated terrorists, they are treated humanely, even down to the detail of having the direction of Mecca stenciled on an arrow on their bodies. This way, they know which direction to point in order to pray."[Muckraker - Is it just me, or does that make no sense whatsoever?]

Sergeant Cerveny says: One said, "I took the detainee by the head and smashed his head into the cell door," she tells ABC News. Another "was telling his buddy, 'Yeah, this one detainee, you know, really pissed me off, irritated me. So I just, you know,
punched him in the face.'"

Congressman Burgess says: "One of the things they're taught is, if they have an opportunity to speak with the Press, always claim torture. What do they have to lose? What are we going to do, take away their fingernail files? We already did.

"Sergeant Cerveny says: The guards also talked about taking away detainees' privileges "even when they're being good" and denying their requests for water. In her affidavit, she states she was told "they do this to anger the detainees so they can punish them when they object or complain."

Congressman Burgess says: "Well, you could argue that we're killing them with kindness because diabetes has become an issue in some cases. But, of course, they're not told they have to eat 4,200 calories a day. The food is specially prepared in accordance with religious tenets."

Sergeant Cerveny says: She says she was "shocked" to hear several guards from different parts of the camp speak openly of mistreating prisoners. "Everyone in the group laughed at all their stories of beating detainees," she recalled. "None of them looked like they cared. None of them looked shocked by it."

Read the rest of the post here.

In the meantime, 16 prisoners were recently released from Guantanamo Bay.

Most of the 16 released Afghans were innocent and had been turned in to the U.S. military by other Afghans because of personal disputes, said Sibghatullah Mujaddedi, head of Afghanistan's reconciliation commission. Many had been held for four years, he said.

Of the 440 detainees in Guantanamo Bay, only 10 have been charged with any crime.

Guantanamo Lawyer Calls Out Senator Cornyn

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2
The Constitution of the United States

This is how Rear Admiral John Hutson, Ret. began his testimony on what's being referred to as the "torture bill."

A persuasive argument can be made that the Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Great Writ, is the single most important bulwark in protecting our rights and freedoms. It is virtually sacrosanct, and those who have suspended it have often been treated harshly by history. That is why these hearings are so important and the action Congress is being asked to take is so momentous. This is an historic moment.

Today's hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee examined the compromise provisions that suspends habeas corpus for detainees labeled "enemy combatants." The Senate Judiciary Chair, Arlen Specter (R-PA), has previously stated his objections to the suspension:

"The courts have traditionally been open to make sure that individual rights are protected, and that is fundamental," Specter said on CNN's "Late Edition. "And the Constitution says when you can suspend the writ of habeas corpus, in time of rebellion or invasion. And we don't have either. So that has to be changed, in my opinion."

But our own Senator John Cornyn shows us why he's one of Bush's favorite lapdogs.

.....the Texas Republican who was the only other member of the committee present for the unusual Monday morning hearing, defended the bill, which he said provided “an alternative source of judicial review rather than the writ of habeas corpus,’’ in the form of annual status reviews and the possibility of appeal after trials before military tribunals.

“It is important to remember — and sometimes I think some forget — these are enemies of the United States captured on the battlefield,’’ Mr. Cornyn said

Cornyn's testimony was rebutted eloquently and forcefully by turns, including Admiral Hutson's address. But my favorite, by far, was from Tom Sullivan, a partner in the law firm that has represented ten prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.

Senator Cornyn, I'd like to address a few remarks you made.

You said these are enemies of the United States captured on the battlefield. None of the 10 we represent were captured on the battlefield or are enemies of the United States.

You said no one suggested that the enemy combatants were entitled to the habeas corpus. The Supreme Court of the United States in the Rasul case two years ago held specifically that they were entitled to habeas corpus, to challenge the reason for their detention.

You said they have an administrative review following a trial on the merits. None of them got a trial on the merits....

No cross-examination was allowed. There wasn't any objection to physical evidence, because there wasn't any produced.

Now, you call that due process, Your Honor? Do you?

Well, of course he does. Senator Cornyn can call it anything he wants. He's a former Attorney General. He served on the Supreme Court of Texas, for goodness sakes! Maybe he tapped into the unitary executive theory by proxy, who knows? At any rate, in case you haven't noticed, we're in a war!

Key members of Congress are trying to enable the highest officers in the land by suspending portions of the Constitution so that the government can indefinitely detain people, and sanction a torture bill. Heaven help us.

"Alice Fisher Confirmed for Assistant Attorney General"

Largely overlooked in yesterday's news cycle was a Senate confirmation hearing with important implications for the issue of torture at Guantanamo Bay. Alice Fisher first gained notice when she was appointed as Assistant Attorney General to head the Criminal Division in the Department of Justice at the height of the publicity over Jack Abramoff and Plamegate.

Fisher was nominated March 29, 2005, and her nomination was sent to the Senate April 4, 2005, but it had been blocked by Michigan Senator Carl Levin over interrogation tactics at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba naval facility. President Bush subsequently appointed her in a controversial recess appointment in August of 2005.

In a Daily Kos diary, peace voter excerpted some of Senator Levin's comments during yesterday's hearing:

"The Administration has put up barrier after barrier, hurdle after hurdle to efforts to get legitimate information that bears on Ms. Fisher's fitness to serve in this important position. Why the Administration has stonewalled for so long instead of answering questions and providing information can only be speculated by me. Is it because it is part of an effort to prevent information about interrogation tactics from being provided to Congress, or does it relate directly to Alice Fisher? I don't know the answer, but the fact of the stonewalling is undeniable. It is part of a pattern of secrecy that this administration has engaged in in so many areas and so many ways.

"The information I have sought relates to what Ms. Fisher knew about aggressive and abusive interrogation techniques in use at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, during the time that Ms. Fisher served as deputy head of the Criminal Division in the Justice Department from July 2001 to July 2003. From publicly-released FBI documents, we have learned that FBI personnel raised serious concerns about these DoD interrogation tactics at weekly meetings between FBI and Department of Justice Criminal Division officials. I have sought to find out what Ms. Fisher knew about these FBI concerns over aggressive DoD methods; what, if anything, was reported to Ms. Fisher; and what steps, if any, she took in response.

"If Ms. Fisher knew of aggressive interrogation techniques at Guantanamo and did nothing about it, or she knew about them but has denied knowing, then I would be deeply troubled. The Administration has repeatedly obstructed efforts to get this information, information which is, in my judgement, relevant to Ms. Fisher's suitability for the position to which she is nominated. "

The Administration has literally and figuratively covered up the Guantanamo abuses. This refusal by the Administration to provide relevant information is part of a larger pattern by the Executive Branch of denying the Senate the information needed to carry out confirmation and oversight responsibilities. Over and over again, the Administration seems to use every means at its disposal to deny documents or information to the Senate, or to withhold key portions of documents, or to limit access to information."

So when Senator Levin, who is a 1959 graduate of Harvard Law School, repeatedly uses terms like "obstruction" and "cover-up" when referring to the administration's refusal, since May of 2005, to provide specific information requested by the Senate, do you think he's trying to tell us something?

Let's face it - if you were facing as many scandals as the Bush administration, wouldn't it feel good to have your handpicked lackey in the Justice Department serving as gatekeeper for criminal investigations? The confirmation of Alice S. Fisher represents just one more example of the politicization of the Justice Department (see previous post, "Revenge of the Nerds".) As Christy Hardin Smith of Firedoglake noted earlier this summer:

And it is high time that reporters in Washington started asking Alice Fisher what she is doing with her fingers in the Abramoff pie and all of the other inter-related lobbyist scandal and corruption issues in the Beltway.

Investigations into the corruption problem in and among lobbyists, elected representatives and Administration officials are too important to be spiked by a political ringer who has the ultimate say on charging decisions, and who has the authority to recommend promoting the best and the brightest out of the Public Corruption unit to ensure they can’t complete their investigations and have no avenue to complain about it. (And the folks who have worked federal public corruption cases can back me up on this — this is the favorite method of stripping the staffing bare, so you protect the political asses of your cronies. Sound like a tactic that an Administration you know and loathe would use?)

Fisher's nomination was approved largely along party lines. Now you can add Gitmo to the list of scandals whose details may never see the light of day.